Hacker News Reader

Comment by nzrf | Hacker News Reader

I also own a Subaru. The assistance is very unwelcome for the crash detection at times. Living in Minnesota the exhaust from a car in front of you can set it off.

This can happen on start off of a green light and can completely decelerate the Subaru. The eyesight detects the exhaust as obstacle the car behind you is now at a loss why you are now immediately breaking off the green light. I’m not a fan at all and eye sight.

Additionally, you have to turn off the backup sensor to leave my drive way or it will slam on the brakes as it detects flowers that may be leaning into the drive way.

Car smarts don’t seem all that smart. I get a kid could be saved here, but driving a car crying wolf all the time leaves a consumer very frustrated. Dealership has been zero help in both regards.

View on HN

The Subaru doesn’t have a forward radar does it? I heard it uses two optical camera instead. I bet smoke/water vapor can trip that up...

Our Mazda gets tripped up when adaptive cruise is engaged and someone pulls into the turn lane to make a left. It also can sometimes get “spooked” on the interstate when going on turns and trucks are in adjacent lanes.

Hasn’t freaked out with collision warnings though. Every time it has it was totally justified.

My Mazda has the same issue with cars in front taking exits. I’ve also had it brake unexpectedly on the highway on Rt 95 in RI. I was coming over the crest of a small hill and in front was a stone overpass. The angle of the radar was still elevated so it thought that I was headed into a stone wall. Except the road dips down well before the overpass so in reality that isn’t a possibility.

The warning lights and alarm went off and then the car slammed on the brakes. Thankfully no one was behind me.

Subaru EyeSight uses two stereoscopic video cameras only: no radar, lidar, or ultrasonics. It was engineered to achieve the maximum possible safety improvement at minimum cost. And it basically succeeded at that, but it's very limited. Can only sense straight ahead, doesn't work at all in fog or heavy precipitation, etc.

What year is your Subaru? My understanding was that early versions of the eyesight system were pretty bad, but they fixed a lot of the kinks in recent versions. It would be disappointing to learn that wasn’t the case...

2018 Outback. Which is fairly new’ish.

I don't like the idea of automatic braking, but arguably plenty of people had irrational fears about seat belts and air bags (although the fears about air bags seem to be coming back)...so I will seriously consider the new safety features once my car insurance offers a significant discount for them.

Good ones only engage when you don’t act fast enough. They’ll also press the brake pedal harder if it thinks you aren’t pressing hard enough fast enough.

Ours only engages when it is truly justified. It has yet to flip its shit incorrectly. It’s adaptive cruise control on the other hand will sometimes freak out about cars in adjacent lanes and slow down more than it should.

Our Volvo V40 saved our butt once on the highway. Late at night, cars piling up all of a sudden in front of us. The car slammed the brakes and stopped us a few meters away from the car in front :-)

I also have a V40 and have also had an experience exactly like that on a motorway - bright red lights flashed at the bottom of the windscreen along to a warning sound and the autonomous braking kicked in and stopped me from hitting the car in front. Excellent system.

When I was a kid - this was quite a few years ago - I had some older relatives who refused to wear a seat belt. Being somewhat of a brat, I asked them why. They answered like this:

"If I get in a wreck, I don't want to be trapped in the car. I want to be thrown clear!"

This might be just me, but I don't think it's bratty to question truly idiotic behavior.

I think it's obnoxious to call people "truly idiotic" if you would not apply the phrase to everyone who takes "unnecessary" risks. I am conditioned from childhood to wear a seatbelt in a car, but I also have owned a motorcycle in the past, and currently own a pre-airbag car (which I assume also lacks more subtle features like modern crumple zones and high strength steel, etc.). What makes one risk reasonable and another not?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com